no title

Progress requires cooperation

Letters Policy

The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or
fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime
phone number.
Dispatch.com also posts letters that don't make it to print in
The Dispatch.

He charges anti-gun supporters with wanting to trample on gun-holders’ constitutional rights
with false compromise. He also asks what non-gun-holders would say if their constitutional right to
speak their minds was taken away with the elimination of freedom of speech.

First, his position is like that of so many all along the political spectrum who appear to value
compromise but will support only a position that is 100 percent their way.

Unfortunately, this strategy has led to gridlock in our legislatures, preventing needed changes
from being made.

Second, although our Constitution allows for free speech, it does so with certain restrictions.
One cannot yell “Fire!” in a movie theater unless there is a fire. There also are laws against
perjury and slander.

Third, compromise on gun control should not prevent someone from legally obtaining a reasonable
firearm for hunting, target practice, protection, as a collector, etc. What it might do is require
all firearms to have a title, much like our motor vehicles. This title also could require a
background check, including criminal history and mental competence, in the same manner as a driver’s
license requires a vision examination and a listing of restrictions.

Finally, while we cannot prevent all criminals or mentally disturbed people from obtaining
firearms, in much the same way we cannot prevent all motor-vehicle accidents or traffic violations
through licensing, we can make common-sense attempts to limit that possibility.

Most compromise is good. Few of us are right all the time or completely at any time. When
phrases like “coming together to solve any problem” are disparaged, we limit our ability to improve
our condition.